Thread: Is theological liberalism unwelcome in the "liberal" Church Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020301
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
One friend of mine has basically left the Anglican Church because he no longer believes in a supernatural deity and is now a follower of Tillich, Spong, Don Cupitt, etc.
Whenever he discusses theology online, he wonders if the church will tolerate or be open to his theology, i.e. no supernatural intervention.
I give him the standard answer by GLL (good little liberal Anglican), that you can certainly interpret the tradition however you want, no one in the church will kick you out if you question the physical Resurrection, but we are not going to change the Tradition for one person's opinions.
This doesn't leave him satisfied, and I'm beginning to think he would be fine if we change the church entirely, and replace "God" in worship with "Ground of being." ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I believe and I can't find the exact quote, but John Spong once wrote or said that the so-called liberal church isn't liberal in the sense that it never actually changes its theology to reflect Paul Tillich and Don Cupitt or Spong.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I've known places as would be comfortable with non-interventionism (I'm fairly non-interventionist myself) but non-existence is a bit more of a stretch.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Misleadingtitle - Sea of Faith types go further than 'liberalism'.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't really understand why anyone who doesn't believe in God and the divinity of Christ would get upset when a Christian church isn't wholly accepting of their views. Perhaps they might be happier with the Unitarians?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Unitarians I know wouldn't be happy with them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But don't the Unitarians and the British Quakers exist to encompass this sort of thinking?
For anyone interested, Rev Gretta Vosper, the Canadian atheist clergywoman whom we discussed on the Ship last year, will be in the UK next month. I see that she'll be preaching or lecturing in Birmingham and Leeds. (Maybe someone would like to attend a service as a mystery worshipper?) At least two British Unitarian churches are happy for her to lead worship. I don't know how representative those churches are of Unitarianism, though.
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
Liberal Christian Theology is essentially about how the teachings of Jesus Christ should determine our behaviour in today's society. It is surely not essentially a means of propagating views, theories and speculations on the non existence of the 'Heavenly Father' whose existence Jesus Christ seemed to take for granted and for whom he spent his life in service and personal sacrifice.
Perhaps 'Theological Liberalism' should be honestly just called 'Skeptical Doubt' and therefore a 'Church' headed up by Richard Dawkins might appeal.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
What is a supernatural deity? What is a natural one? Where does intervention come from? Does God exist in the same way Bigfoot exists, or might exist? Why shouldn't we change the "Tradition"? Isn't that what traditions are? The changing life of a community?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I wonder about too much thinking and not enough doing.
Spong always struck me as wanting to be his very own little Jesus, having discarded the three legged stool to stand here (or there) on his two legs, and never crucified except in book reviews.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This doesn't leave him satisfied, and I'm beginning to think he would be fine if we change the church entirely, and replace "God" in worship with "Ground of being."
I never really understood people who have defined themselves out the door wanting the building to move so that they're still inside. Why not find another building, one that fits one's definitions better? It's as if I were a member of a tulip bulb collector's society, and decided I'd rather collect chrysanthemum bulbs, and insist that the tulip society change itself to be a tulip plus chrysanthemum club, or switch over to chrysanthemums and leave tulips altogether. It's an absurd request.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What is a supernatural deity?
A linguistic redundancy.
quote:
What is a natural one?
An oxymoron.
quote:
Why shouldn't we change the "Tradition"?
Perhaps we should. But that doesn't mean that any one particular change is warranted, let alone required.
quote:
Isn't that what traditions are? The changing life of a community?
That's not part of any definition I've ever heard.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But don't the Unitarians and the British Quakers exist to encompass this sort of thinking?
For anyone interested, Rev Gretta Vosper, the Canadian atheist clergywoman whom we discussed on the Ship last year, will be in the UK next month. I see that she'll be preaching or lecturing in Birmingham and Leeds. (Maybe someone would like to attend a service as a mystery worshipper?) At least two British Unitarian churches are happy for her to lead worship. I don't know how representative those churches are of Unitarianism, though.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
She's the Energizer Bunny of Heresy and Atheism: she keeps going, and going and going.....
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Maybe someone would like to attend a service as a mystery worshipper?) At least two British Unitarian churches are happy for her to lead worship. I don't know how representative those churches are of Unitarianism, though.
I don't think one can describe anything that Ms. Vosper does as "worship" - she doesn't believe in anything to worship.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I reckon if I didn't believe in God it would give me a great deal of amusement to find a church willing to modify its beliefs to welcome me.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Liberal Christian Theology is essentially about how the teachings of Jesus Christ should determine our behaviour in today's society.
I'm not sure what liberalism means these days.
I used to think it meant "people who don't take what the Bible says seriously" but as time goes by, I've met many "liberals" who actually seem to take the Bible more seriously than many self-proclaimed theological conservatives or evangelicals (not all of them, for sure, but too many to ignore).
I'm with RdrEmCofE (and welcome, by the way!) in that I increasingly think the useful distinction between theological strands is the matter of whether or not contextualising the original text is held to be legitimate.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm not sure this is telling us anything remarkable. Ideas, beliefs and religions evolve, but the drivers of the most radical change are at the edges. It's a messy space where those at the edges feel like they are neither in-nor-out.
Occasionally those at the edges are able to force real change in the religion as a whole, but my gut feeling is that that is unusual.
More commonly they're permanently expelled and go away to start a new religion or church or school of philosophy/theology.
In the context of the Christian church, I think all we're seeing here is that unbelief in a deity is almost always a step too far, and that a church which wants to call itself Christian almost always also has to have a backstop which is a belief in the deity.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure what liberalism means these days.
I used to think it meant "people who don't take what the Bible says seriously" but as time goes by, I've met many "liberals" who actually seem to take the Bible more seriously than many self-proclaimed theological conservatives or evangelicals.
Yes, I discovered that in my time in the URC. But, as so often, there are "liberals", struggling to make some meaningful sense out of an ancient text written in a very different culture to ours and using a wide variety of hermeneutical and philosophical tools to apply it to our contemporary situation; and then there are "liberals", totally obsessed by supposedly modernistic rationality, uncritically placing all of Scripture and faith under its allegedly objective scrutiny and kicking out anything that their limited minds cannot easily comprehend.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As [there] are conservatives.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One friend of mine has basically left the Anglican Church because he no longer believes in a supernatural deity and is now a follower of Tillich, Spong, Don Cupitt, etc.
I can't claim to be any sort of theologian at all, but I did recently read 'The Courage to Be'. I have to say, it was hands-down the best non-fiction book I've read in very many a year - and I completely managed to miss the bit where Tillich repudiated the existence of a supernatural deity.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whenever he discusses theology online, he wonders if the church will tolerate or be open to his theology, i.e. no supernatural intervention.
The question of whether the Church will tolerate his theology seems reasonable. (For what it's worth, my church has Richard Holloway preach every now and again and I'm not sure whether Holloway believes even as much as Spong.)
The question of whether the Church is 'open to his theology' seems to me more loaded. It seems to imply that if the Church doesn't agree with him that's because the Church is failing to be 'open'; the idea being that anyone open-minded would agree with his theology. That sort of implication is one of things that makes followers of Spong et al get up people's noses.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As [there] are conservatives.
I think that retaining (as opposed to jettisoning) faith involves respecting the integrity of the founding text and respecting the legitimacy of contextualisation. "Godless liberals" fall off that tightrope one way, fundamentalist conservatives the other.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I'd go with that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Maybe someone would like to attend a service as a mystery worshipper?) At least two British Unitarian churches are happy for her to lead worship. I don't know how representative those churches are of Unitarianism, though.
I don't think one can describe anything that Ms. Vosper does as "worship" - she doesn't believe in anything to worship.
Yes, I did wonder about my choice of word there!
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure what liberalism means these days.
I used to think it meant "people who don't take what the Bible says seriously" but as time goes by, I've met many "liberals" who actually seem to take the Bible more seriously than many self-proclaimed theological conservatives or evangelicals (not all of them, for sure, but too many to ignore).
Perhaps that's because liberal Christians more often benefit from particular educational tools and intellectual inclinations when they approach the text?
Sometimes I think the difference is psychological and sociological rather than theological. Take different kinds of people and put them in different conditions, and you'll get different readings of the Bible.
But TBH, a 'serious' approach to the Bible, if this means careful reading and study, is less and less likely to be a strong feature of Christian life across the board.
Going back to the OP, I think the CofE is limited, ironically, by wanting to be a broad church. If it were publicly funded like the Scandinavian Lutheran churches it might have developed in an almost exclusively liberal direction, but as it is, it needs to appeal to a range of constituencies.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For anyone interested, Rev Gretta Vosper, the Canadian atheist clergywoman whom we discussed on the Ship last year, will be in the UK next month. I see that she'll be preaching or lecturing in Birmingham and Leeds.
Yes, I knew about this. Interesting though to notice that, while she's lecturing at Carr's Lane URC, she's not leading worship there ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Yes, that is interesting.
Carrs Lane 'promotes' itself as a space for liberal Christianity, but I shouldn't think its worshipping community is quite as liberal as she is....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Having known a former minister of the church, whom I respected although sometimes disagreeing with, I think you're right! I suspect that Vosper, like Spong, seems to have gathered her own band of acolytes for whom she can do no wrong (and, dare I say, may rather enjoy seeing themselves as brave ecclesiastical iconoclasts).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As [there] are conservatives.
I think that retaining (as opposed to jettisoning) faith involves respecting the integrity of the founding text and respecting the legitimacy of contextualisation. "Godless liberals" fall off that tightrope one way, fundamentalist conservatives the other.
Isn't it all about where you are on the historical-grammatical/critical 2D or 3D or more spectrum and where that takes you? To atheism, liberal-conservative-fundamentalist Christianity within denomination? The opposite applies of course: One believes in God, based on enculturation and wiring, what method mix appeals? One does not therefore one is unlikely to use historical-grammatical method.
I see nothing wrong with both and much wrong with just either. I see both at work in Steve Chalke's recent championing of scholarship that shows that the New Testament is not universally homophobic. Historical-grammatical method alone very much tends to universal decontextualized literalism, inerrancy and infallibility, the faith once delivered and sophomoric historical-critical method alone paradoxically tends to as well: 'look what these savages believed about God therefore there is none.'.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As [there] are conservatives.
I think that retaining (as opposed to jettisoning) faith involves respecting the integrity of the founding text and respecting the legitimacy of contextualisation. "Godless liberals" fall off that tightrope one way, fundamentalist conservatives the other.
I would take issue with the idea of a founding text. Christianity didn't start with writings, and it seems important to me to resist any tendency to fix or objectify it's heart.
For the same reason I don't approve of saying we must at least believe that God exists. This also objectifies God; it talks about God rather than to God.
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
Essentially Christianity has no 'Founding Text' as for instance The Mormons, Christian Scientists or Muslims do. The New Testament grew out of the already existent New Testament church. It was only later gathered together, perhaps edited and declared complete in the time of Constantine.
Founding texts are usually considered essential by their authors. Jesus Christ wrote very little, and what he did write is unknown to history so founder, author and finisher of the Christian faith relied entirely upon his followers to produce a working record of the essential tenets of his teaching.
Regards Chris.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
That's the point.
Christianity is not founded in a book, a text. It is founded in a person. The Word did not become paper and dwell among us. The Word became flesh. However authoritative we regard scripture, and as it happens, I have a fairly high view of scripture, it is the books about the Word, not the Word itself.
I've just said something similar on the 'rejecting the OT' thread.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The thing is, we only know the person through the text.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Essentially Christianity has no 'Founding Text' as for instance The Mormons, Christian Scientists or Muslims do. The New Testament grew out of the already existent New Testament church. It was only later gathered together, perhaps edited and declared complete in the time of Constantine.
Founding texts are usually considered essential by their authors. Jesus Christ wrote very little, and what he did write is unknown to history so founder, author and finisher of the Christian faith relied entirely upon his followers to produce a working record of the essential tenets of his teaching.
Regards Chris.
Alleluia!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't approve of saying we must at least believe that God exists. This also objectifies God; it talks about God rather than to God.
But how can you talk to God if you don't believe he exists??
I suppose you can talk to the 'idea' of God. Or to God as a metaphor for something important. But that doesn't seem any less objectifying to me.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Existence objectifies God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The thing is, we only know the person through the text.
As lilBuddha said elsewhere.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Hatless, Martin60, RdrEmCofE et al:
When I wrote my post I actually (and truthfully) had Islam at least partly in mind ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
As regards Christianity, you are right that it didn't start with a text, and indeed I myself am very hot on referring only to Jesus as the Word of God. But I do so because that's how the Scriptures speak of him ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
The written word may not be the foundation of Christianity, and without the Spirit the letter kills, nonetheless the written word is an important part of Christianity and is how we know anything about Jesus at all.
How about "foundational" instead of "founding"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Existence objectifies God.
Does it objectify me, too?
This seems to be a religion for philosophers rather than ordinary people. Fair enough - but it's probably best if the two religions are kept apart. You wouldn't want to mislead folks....
[ 19. September 2017, 20:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The written word may not be the foundation of Christianity, and without the Spirit the letter kills, nonetheless the written word is an important part of Christianity and is how we know anything about Jesus at all.
It may seem pedantic, given how much we rely on the New Testament, but it seems to me that we would still have some knowledge of Jesus passed down through the Church even without it. The Gospel was first shared through word of mouth, after all. Whether it would be the same version of Christianity after 2000 years is a different matter.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Existence is fine for us, but God is not an object in the world, nor is God outside the world (but occasionally intervening). For something to exist means, usually, that there is at least one instance, somewhere, of that something. But that ain't the case with God.
But also, requiring belief in the existence of God as a sort of minimum requirement, turns a person into a bit of a thing, Christian if you do this, not if you don't. What is going on with the liberal unsure of their status at the top of this thread? Is there not some sort of faith being expressed in the troubled dynamic of their uncertain relationship with the Church and its belief?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
it seems to me that we would still have some knowledge of Jesus passed down through the Church even without it. The Gospel was first shared through word of mouth, after all. Whether it would be the same version of Christianity after 2000 years is a different matter.
You might be right in theory, but we'll never know, will we?
In historical terms, the Christianity we have is mediated through the written word.
I tend to believe that's how God intended things to be, but my opinion doesn't alter the historical fact of the matter.
(In theological terms, I'd say the Christian faith we live is mediated through the Spirit illuminating the written word and empowering us to apply it appropriately in our daily lives).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You might be right in theory, but we'll never know, will we?
In historical terms, the Christianity we have is mediated through the written word.
Surely this is an opinion not a fact. One could make an argument of the reverse: that somehow the New Testament is a record of the faith of the church and that what is written down was mediated by the orthodox faith of the church.
quote:
I tend to believe that's how God intended things to be, but my opinion doesn't alter the historical fact of the matter.
No, that's true: although it is a very Evangelical position to emphasise the importance and preeminence of the text over the faith held by the church universal IMO.
quote:
(In theological terms, I'd say the Christian faith we live is mediated through the Spirit illuminating the written word and empowering us to apply it appropriately in our daily lives).
Mmm. That's also quite interesting. I wonder the point at which "the work of the spirit" was seen to be something which was understood on this individual level and which could be transmitted from the book to the individual outwith of the church.
I'd guess that's got to be linked to the emergence of translations in the vernacular (and the increase in the numbers of people who could read it) and the forms of protestant theology which emphasise the faith of the individual rather than the faith of the church.
[ 19. September 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I think there is a difference between a discussion group where people can express and share points of view to corporate worship as a community.
For example on the issue of prayer, where I know people who have a strong supernaturalist view (prayer changes God and can get Him to do stuff) to people who have a skeptical, almost nontheistic view (prayer doesn't change God, but it is an expression of our love, and makes us kind and caring towards other people); a good discussion group between Christians would be fruitful and illuminating.
But I do not believe it is fair to stop praying for people who are sick during worship simply because some people might say "praying for sick people don't heal them, so we should stop."
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Surely this is an opinion not a fact. One could make an argument of the reverse: that somehow the New Testament is a record of the faith of the church and that what is written down was mediated by the orthodox faith of the church.
This is closer to where I am at. The New Testament is a product of the Church, not the other way around.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The NT is the product of about nine, all but one or two at most Jewish and another one possibly female, authors - about half of whom knew Jesus for a thousand days or so - over a few decades, edited over a century or two from 1970 odd years ago, all living at some point in the Jewish capital of a Roman province in the Hellenized ancient near east.
The original NT alien snowflake nucleated on Jesus of the thereafter avalanching snowball we call the Church.
[ 20. September 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The NT is the product of about nine, all but one or two at most Jewish and another one possibly female, authors - about half of whom knew Jesus for a thousand days or so - over a few decades, edited over a century or two from 1970 odd years ago, all living at some point in the Jewish capital of a Roman province in the Hellenized ancient near east.
The 27 books of the NT are the products of about those nine or so authors, etc., etc. The NT itself, as as a collection of writings accepted as sacred Scripture, is the product of the church's decision that these 27 books should be considered canonical, and that the other gospels and writings about Jesus circulating out there should not.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is an entirely common sense rationale for the inclusion of the texts we have and exclusion of the rest. Nothing sacred, spooky, magic about it. Nothing MAGISTERIAL.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is an entirely common sense rationale for the inclusion of the texts we have and exclusion of the rest. Nothing sacred, spooky, magic about it. Nothing MAGISTERIAL.
Maybe so. That doesn't change the fact that the NT—not the books that are included in it, but the NT itself—is the product of the church.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Were the writers of the books not part of the Church? Were they not followers of Jesus?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
This is closer to where I am at. The New Testament is a product of the Church, not the other way around.
Yes. I would go so far to say that this is a "no duh." The church predates the NT, and the NT's books were written by members of the church, and the canon of the NT was chosen by members of the church. Those are just flat historical facts.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is an entirely common sense rationale for the inclusion of the texts we have and exclusion of the rest. Nothing sacred, spooky, magic about it. Nothing MAGISTERIAL.
Maybe so. That doesn't change the fact that the NT—not the books that are included in it, but the NT itself—is the product of the church.
What else would "magesterial" look like, other than members of the church getting together and deciding as a body what books to accept and which to reject? Why does that not qualify for "magesterial"?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is an entirely common sense rationale for the inclusion of the texts we have and exclusion of the rest. Nothing sacred, spooky, magic about it. Nothing MAGISTERIAL.
Maybe so. That doesn't change the fact that the NT—not the books that are included in it, but the NT itself—is the product of the church.
What else would "magesterial" look like, other than members of the church getting together and deciding as a body what books to accept and which to reject? Why does that not qualify for "magesterial"?
It does, it seems to me. I don't think I suggested otherwise. My point was simply that the "rationale for the inclusion of the texts we have and exclusion of the rest" is irrelevant to the question of who made the decisions to include and exclude.
That said, I'll readily admit that's possibility that I'm the one who failed to catch the relevance of Martin's post.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It doesn't take some massive, monolithic, mystical magisterium. It didn't. It took common sense.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Whether you're right or wrong on that, I'm still not seeing how it's relevant to the question of who produced the NT. Sorry.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OOM ten people out of a thousand times that at the time. Whoever came after in no matter how byzantine and magisterial an organization had the common sense to keep it to that.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OOM ten people out of a thousand times that at the time. Whoever came after in no matter how byzantine and magisterial an organization had the common sense to keep it to that.
OOM? Sorry, still not getting what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that the authors of the NT books were also the ones who decided those books would be accepted as canonical?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
OOM? Sorry, still not getting what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that the authors of the NT books were also the ones who decided those books would be accepted as canonical?
I'm guessing "order of magnitude".
I think Martin's saying that of the first ten thousand or so Christians, roughly ten of them were involved in producing the NT books, and (perhaps) of the first million or so Christians, roughly a thousand of them had a part in establishing the NT canon.
I think he's denying that there was some unanimous expressing of accord by the whole of the Church (each individual believer) that invests the decisions to write and recognise the NT texts as "Scripture" and which carries some uniquely special authority binding on everyone who came after. He's not (I think) denying that the decision to define the canon of scripture as we have it was a reasonably sensible one and could be defended as such, whereas it cannot be defended by appeal to an authority which he thinks is fictional.
I could be wrong. There is an element of interpretation to Martin's posts.
[ 21. September 2017, 13:40: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks Eliab. That helps a great deal.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Eliab. Regardless of everything else that went on in the first couple or three centuries, common sense prevailed in the thousand as to what was of any use, by then, no matter how placist and political the Church got, the 'canon' couldn't be interfered with.
[ 21. September 2017, 14:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Existence is fine for us, but God is not an object in the world, nor is God outside the world (but occasionally intervening). For something to exist means, usually, that there is at least one instance, somewhere, of that something. But that ain't the case with God.
But also, requiring belief in the existence of God as a sort of minimum requirement, turns a person into a bit of a thing, Christian if you do this, not if you don't. What is going on with the liberal unsure of their status at the top of this thread? Is there not some sort of faith being expressed in the troubled dynamic of their uncertain relationship with the Church and its belief?
I'm not sure I find this terribly meaningful, but I accept that there are others who do.
The interesting question is whether organised Christianity can be successful if it takes this approach on as its general modus operandi, rather than as a kind of subculture within a more theologically traditional framework. I don't think so, really.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
You want to judge things according to whether they make for success?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Tangent alert
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The NT is the product of about nine, all but one or two at most Jewish and another one possibly female, authors - about half of whom knew Jesus for a thousand days or so - over a few decades, edited over a century or two from 1970 odd years ago, all living at some point in the Jewish capital of a Roman province in the Hellenized ancient near east. ...
Martin, I'm a bit curious about this one.
As far as I know, the only books normally supposed to have been written by a gentile are Luke and Acts, both universally accepted since the earliest times as written by the same person. So that is one gentile.
Even allowing for debate about whether there are epistles attributed to St Paul that he didn't write, I don't think those that say he didn't write some of them have gone the next step and identified somebody else who did.
As far as I know the attribution of Hebrews to St Paul in some Bibles has long been universally accepted to be late and erroneous. But I don't think anyone has seriously argued it was written by anyone other than a Jew who was familiar with what happened in the Temple.
So which other book might have been written by a gentile, why and by whom?
And nice though it might be to think that there might be a book in the NT written by a woman, which one would it be and why? Apart from somebody thinking 'well there ought to be one' is there any basis at all for arguing there was?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You want to judge things according to whether they make for success?
Well, it's not the only criterion, but it's obviously a significant one.
A religious movement might do lots of wonderful things, but if it can't reproduce itself effectively, or maintain its structures and culture then it might reasonably be described as having a problem.
OTOH, a certain amount of liberalism is attractive to most denominations as they age. It's indicative of a highly educated clergy, and of a rational, mature membership. Those are positive things to present to the outside world.
But when you refer to liberals and 'the troubled dynamic of their uncertain relationship with the Church and its belief' I think that's inevitable, really. To be part of a mainstream church family yet insist that God doesn't really exist is to bite the more traditional hand that feeds you; it can't be the most settling experience for either side.
But that's life. We do what we can.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Meanwhile, the rest of get on with following God.
The church's task is to go where God leads, not to run itself like a golfclub. If you want to go to a golfclub go to one, but don't fool yourself you're going to church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What do you think turns a church into a golf club?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You want to judge things according to whether they make for success?
Well, it's not the only criterion, but it's obviously a significant one.
A religious movement might do lots of wonderful things, but if it can't reproduce itself effectively, or maintain its structures and culture then it might reasonably be described as having a problem.
OTOH, a certain amount of liberalism is attractive to most denominations as they age. It's indicative of a highly educated clergy, and of a rational, mature membership. Those are positive things to present to the outside world.
Fair comment.
In my denomination, Baptist, there are many people who love the latest movement that promises big numbers of converts. There have been so many of them. Blessings, outpourings, revivals. As soon as one ends another takes its place, with extravagant claims of wonders, packed services, lives changed. I went to a presentation about a new one just this week.
I think it's pathological. I agree that the church in the West has real problems, but to repeatedly believe that yet another version of the last failed solution is about to change everything is stupid. I know you weren't saying this, Svitlana.
I'd like to see a renewal in theology. All the renewal movements have the same early Twentieth Century decisionist, biblicist theology.
I'd like to see more thought about the relationship between church and home life and work. Much modern worship creates a separate world that doesn't speak to the realities of life and politics.
But I think we have to let go of 'success' for this to happen.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'd like to see more thought about the relationship between church and home life and work. Much modern worship creates a separate world that doesn't speak to the realities of life and politics.
Some of us (Baptists) do try to do this, at lest some of the time - but I definitely take your point and agree!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But I think we have to let go of 'success' for this to happen.
Of course, one way of letting go of 'success' would be to leave the Baptists and join a smaller, more marginal movement that's committed to the liberal path. There are a few of them around....
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 24. September 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Enoch
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The NT is the product of about nine, all but one or two at most Jewish and another one possibly female, authors - about half of whom knew Jesus for a thousand days or so - over a few decades, edited over a century or two from 1970 odd years ago, all living at some point in the Jewish capital of a Roman province in the Hellenized ancient near east. ...
Martin, I'm a bit curious about this one.
As far as I know, the only books normally supposed to have been written by a gentile are Luke and Acts, both universally accepted since the earliest times as written by the same person. So that is one gentile.
Even allowing for debate about whether there are epistles attributed to St Paul that he didn't write, I don't think those that say he didn't write some of them have gone the next step and identified somebody else who did.
As far as I know the attribution of Hebrews to St Paul in some Bibles has long been universally accepted to be late and erroneous. But I don't think anyone has seriously argued it was written by anyone other than a Jew who was familiar with what happened in the Temple.
So which other book might have been written by a gentile, why and by whom?
And nice though it might be to think that there might be a book in the NT written by a woman, which one would it be and why? Apart from somebody thinking 'well there ought to be one' is there any basis at all for arguing there was?
Wiki: Authors
The books of the New Testament were all or nearly all written by Jewish Christians—that is, Jewish disciples of Christ, who lived in the Roman Empire, and under Roman occupation. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, is frequently thought of as an exception; scholars are divided as to whether Luke was a Gentile or a Hellenist Jew. A few scholars identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as probably a Gentile, and similarly for the Gospel of Matthew, though most assert Jewish-Christian authorship.
So it ranges from all Jewish to three non-Jewish out of ten-ish, >=9-ish.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Meanwhile, the rest of [sic] get on with following God.
The church's task is to go where God leads, not to run itself like a golfclub. If you want to go to a golfclub go to one, but don't fool yourself you're going to church.
Following Him where? How? Where, how, who is He leading? Can you show me?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Enoch said
quote:
As far as I know the attribution of Hebrews to St Paul in some Bibles has long been universally accepted to be late and erroneous. But I don't think anyone has seriously argued it was written by anyone other than a Jew who was familiar with what happened in the Temple
Adolfo Von Harnack, venerable biblical scholar, suggested Hebrews might have been written by Priscilla, because it's unattributed and Priscilla was a big deal and should have done something. (F F Bruce had a neat theory that if you put the NT scrolls into jars you would probably put Hebrews in with the Pauline epistles because you'd have enough room in that one. But he had a sense of humour so may have been joking.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But I think we have to let go of 'success' for this to happen.
Of course, one way of letting go of 'success' would be to leave the Baptists and join a smaller, more marginal movement that's committed to the liberal path. There are a few of them around....
One of my puzzles is why so many apparently intelligent Christians seem to want to be in churches which offer simplistic pietistic answers. Is it because they find the "real world" such an overload that they want to "opt out" when it comes to worship? Is is that they have enclosed religion in a box marked "spiritual" which doesn't impinge on day-to-lay life? Is it because there are few, if any, liberal churches which seem to have left the 1970s and can offer a contemporary "buzz"? Or what?
[ 24. September 2017, 17:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Actually it was Adolf Von Harnack, not his Spanish cousin.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Golf club mentality = interest in membership, self-perpetuation and offering privileges exclusively on the basis of membership.
AKA "success". Fascinating, but deadly. Addictive, but fatal.
What is God? The ultimate deictic: the word used to define the instruction "that whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent"; to obey Eliot's observation "it is pure fear and terror that leads us to address the void as "thou"". The wonderful thing is that the void, when addressed, replies with loving relationship, the type of which is Christ.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How do I experience that?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One of my puzzles is why so many apparently intelligent Christians seem to want to be in churches which offer simplistic pietistic answers. Is it because they find the "real world" such an overload that they want to "opt out" when it comes to worship? Is is that they have enclosed religion in a box marked "spiritual" which doesn't impinge on day-to-lay life? Is it because there are few, if any, liberal churches which seem to have left the 1970s and can offer a contemporary "buzz"? Or what?
The idea that 'simplistic' religion is of no help with everyday life doesn't seem right to me. If simplistic religion = strict religion then that frequently has quite a lot to say about how everyday life should be lived. It invades personal life to a considerable extent.
Liberal religion, by contrast, seems very anxious not to impinge too much on what people want to do in their own time. It doesn't seem to offer much guidance - or nothing that you couldn't get from modern, secular, humanism. It doesn't seem to make much difference. Yes, there's the social justice stuff, but are liberal Christians really more effective with regards to that these days?
In our culture tolerance is admired as a general principle, but there's clearly little pulling power in a religion that makes few demands on the individual. Meanwhile, a religion of high expectations appeals to some people because it gives them something to work for, to grapple with. It holds out the possibility that they can change their lives if they want to, and that how they live actually matters. There's often a greater sense of the priesthood of all believers, while liberalism's emphasis on the intellect and on professionalism seems to put the spotlight on the religious professionals - i.e., the clergy, but not really on intelligent churchgoers in general.
And the assumption that educated people all want to focus on the intellect and on rational ideas above all else is also problematic. That's a very modernist (i.e. a somewhat dated) view. Educated people today do all sorts of things and seek all kinds of experiences that don't seem entirely rational. Churches with an entirely 'rational' persona are going to find it especially hard to reach them.
For example, John Drane's very interesting book 'The McDonaldization of the Church' refers to the various personality types that many mainstream churches and their clergy have difficulty speaking to. One group, the 'spiritual seekers', are often well-educated, but they want a holistic spirituality, not just an weekly intellectual exercise with a dollop of social justice posturing.
Now, from the Ship and elsewhere I get the impression that 'simplistic' churches often attract educated people who want a religion where they can feel something, where they can involve their whole being in worship. They'd rather not be in such a conservative setting, but if rational, cerebral, mainstream settings offer very little spiritual release what alternative do such people have? Very few of them become reasonable Methodists (or even more reasonable Unitarians), that's for sure!
To be fair, almost all forms of British Christianity will be facing challenging times in upcoming decades pass. Those churches that deliberately eschew 'success' will easily achieve their goal. But why do that and then complain about the folks who go to 'simplistic' churches? Rather, be grateful that people with inappropriate expectations aren't turning up and trying to change the way you do church....
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I think a lot of theologically liberal clergy are made uncomfortable by theologically liberal laypeople because they have a tendency to rile up the conservatives in Bible studies and the like, leading to much flouncing, calling the bishop and other unpleasantness. The pastor/ priest might be secretly dying to have an intelligent conversation about Paul Tillich or the Documentary Hypothesis or whatever, but pragmatism/fear keeps him/her throwing Bible study softballs like, " And how does that verse make you feel?"
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I'm not sure what theological liberalism is, any more. Maybe it is a meta-theology valuing certain approaches to religion, but it has so many individual concrete expressions -- and a lowest common denominator/common ground approach can lead not to productive cooperation but to impotent silence.
Who still talks about Tillich? Who still preaches on him? (For that matter, who still talks about Barth?) Tillich died over half a century ago, and was born in the 1880s. Who is his equivalent now?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Svitlana: excellent post,thank you!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I've never got the impression that "holistic spirituality" was available from conservative churches, at least not on the protestant end of the spectrum. Emotional manipulation (if you're lucky) and a dose of conservative social policy rants masquerading as a sermon is more what I've seen.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I hadn't heard of "The McDonaldization of the Church" but it sounds like something I'd agree is a plague. Business models applied to church with too much of an eye on the bottom line leading to branded, proprietary products with no room for nuance, and the ultimate goal the survival, and indeed expansion, of the brand. Ugh.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
BT, SvitlanaV2 – simplistic pietism rules as far as the eye can hear in my twelve years in Anglicanism, with one noble exception (and the cathedrals). A tame liberal allowed to speak in my most recent congo of four years sandwiched round a nice MOTR village (with the only gay!) one for three. Not that I've been for a year as the last consummate, polished, wry, warm speaker we heard damned all adulterers to hell a la 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 and that included half the congo of course, as they're divorced and remarried, including my wife and I, married by the vicar still there. And on top of simplistic pietism there is intense worship, adoration. The worst of both worlds : ) I think this city's is the worst I've known admittedly. And it's bad enough elsewhere. Damnationism, Islamophobia and vicarious martyrdom abound.
The only liberal Christianity I've encountered in the flesh (apart from the ONE speaker in twelve years of up to twice on Sunday and house groups and PCC meetings evangelical Anglicanism above) is Steve Chalke's true and most effective Oasis. That has pulling power. That pursues social justice. That makes demands. As much as it can. … nearly. Which is a tad more than I make of myself. I don't understand pietistic 'demand' in the absence of the demand for social justice in the congregation and immediately and further beyond. Real social justice. Holding all things in common. (Hence the 'nearly' above. Even Oasis doesn't go that far.) Not just liberal intellectual platitudes which would be a waste of breath and shamed by the actual little finger extension of real social justice done by pietists. If I want to assuage my social conscience I have to work, flex my pinkie, with pietists; 'charismatic' – desperately unchallengeably magical thinking - conservative evangelicals as there is nowhere else to go. Or other even more therefore deeply conservative, pious but socially outreaching arm waving worshipful non-conformists. At least I can do that without having to endure … pious sermons. Could try the Quakers I suppose, but the thought of nutters filling the vacuum of silence puts me off.
I'm planning to go to the cathedral at lunchtime every week starting this week. I NEED the numinous, the spiritual release, I NEED communion, I need to bow my head, I need to sing, but not SING PRAISE!!! And I don't need my intellect titillating. I come here for that. Not that my all but physicalism can be met even here.
Balance eh?! SOF, the sublimely cultured cathedral and Friday Night is Homeless Night.
I contrast this: 'We're now into a daily programme of visiting churches for Bible teaching, training and ministry during the day and evening. … What I loved was the passionate way they expressed their faith in Jesus in worship and their hunger for God. And the team had the privilege of praying for hundreds of people. I saw 3 people clearly healed physically- one guy had been to the doctors on numerous occasions about the base of his foot which had become so painful that he could not place weight on it and was now unable to work. The doctors had no idea how to treat the problem despite numerous visits and scans. But Jesus did and he was healed completely and his life freed from pain and restriction. Over one hundred healings took place and numerous people experienced God pouring his Holy Spirit into their lives. Praise God! I don't think I'm going to get bored of this.' of which I despair and from the same source this '… a team of over 20 young adults in their early 20s dedicated to serving the people of this poor [Brazilian] community'. You can't have the one without the other it seems.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I'm not sure what theological liberalism is, any more. Maybe it is a meta-theology valuing certain approaches to religion, but it has so many individual concrete expressions -- and a lowest common denominator/common ground approach can lead not to productive cooperation but to impotent silence.
Who still talks about Tillich? Who still preaches on him? (For that matter, who still talks about Barth?) Tillich died over half a century ago, and was born in the 1880s. Who is his equivalent now?
We get loads of Tillich and Barth at our church
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We get loads of Tillich and Barth at our church
I'm genuinely glad to hear that. Does your church refer to anyone living you'd consider their equivalent? (I won't insist that they have had a Time magazine cover ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
leo can speak for himself. Personally, given the liberal/conservative gulfs, I think James Dunn deserves a hearing in churches up and down the candle. From the linked article, I liked this, and following.
quote:
Anyone who is saying something significant today is going to be misrepresented by detractors. What are the 3 main misrepresentations or objections to your work among evangelical Christians, and what are your responses to those misrepresentations or objections?
James D.G. Dunn: (1) That I deny or diminish the divinity/deity of Christ in questioning the usual concept of his pre-existence; (2) that in the ‘new perspective on Paul’ I deny Paul’s/the Reformation’s basic teaching on justification by faith’; (3) that I diminish or deny the authority of scripture.
There was a critique of Barth's neo-orthodoxy which, laughably, described his ideas as "the new liberalism". This is, sadly, a part of the territory. Barth disturbed comfortable thinking, Dunn does the same. As Hans Kung did within Catholicism.
Deep thinkers often get a bad press from folks up and down the conservative-liberal dimension. Personally, I treasure any deep thinker who makes me think about any of my own automatic thinking. I think they do me a favour, whether or not I end up modifying my views. But that's just me, certainly not everyone.
[ 26. September 2017, 09:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I find his answer to (1) immensely liberating. He is in the tradition of Barth (I grasped neo-orthodoxy like a drowning man when I came across it seven years ago, through my transformed former cult, a hundred years late) and Tillich for sure, without developing Spongiform theolopathy.
For a year I've been struggling with the power of physical reality and the impossibility if imagining transcendence although I talk to It immanent every day.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bugger, OF imagining.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The question Demas asks feels like a salutary challenge. There are living theologians that feed me and their ideas certainly influence my thinking and ministry, but I'm unlikely to name them. I don't expect congregations to be curious about the current theological scene. Which raises the question why? I feel the force of this accusation.
I think there is an issue that the most stimulating theologians tend to operate in an academic setting where their writings are shaped for fellow academics and are therefore difficult for non-academics to access. Their writings are often simply too difficult to understand, their books are expensive, not well advertised, and the dialogue around them is not available. Why was this book written? Who is it engaging with? This is hard to get a handle on from outside not just academia but that little specialism where they operate. To really grapple with live theology you probably need to read journals and attend conferences.
Also, theology is slow. It really does take a long time for the theological world to absorb and process important work. Barth is very well worked over, but Bonhoeffer seems to be very much a live thread. I can only think of one theologian I would hurry to buy the latest book from: Rowan Williams. But where would I get the heads up for most of them?
I will start a thread about this.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We get loads of Tillich and Barth at our church
I'm genuinely glad to hear that. Does your church refer to anyone living you'd consider their equivalent? (I won't insist that they have had a Time magazine cover
Yes - Miroslav Wolf
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I hadn't heard of "The McDonaldization of the Church" but it sounds like something I'd agree is a plague. Business models applied to church with too much of an eye on the bottom line leading to branded, proprietary products with no room for nuance, and the ultimate goal the survival, and indeed expansion, of the brand. Ugh.
I imagine there are books about what you describe here, but Drane's book is actually about something rather different.
He's referring to mainstream, historical churches whose inclinations are somewhat cerebral, and which have routinised (i.e. 'McDonaldized') worship in a way that excludes people who need a more holistic experience. IME churches such as these aren't into 'branding', and are rarely obsessed with growth. They're more comfortable with managing decline.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've never got the impression that "holistic spirituality" was available from conservative churches, at least not on the protestant end of the spectrum. Emotional manipulation (if you're lucky) and a dose of conservative social policy rants masquerading as a sermon is more what I've seen.
We seem to have a dualistic church culture, in which some churches are over-cerebral and others are over-emotional. It seems hard to be truly holistic. But perhaps it's easier for certain dynamic charismatic churches to feed the need for emotional release yet also provide the social setting for at least some sharing of ideas, if not high-brow intellectualism.
Charismatic churches rather than the liberal-leaning churches are likely to have the educated and youthful demographic, the small groups, and maybe even the most sustained social engagement with the wider community; all this together must give rise to some conversation about issues, although not to the extent that the average Shippie would like.
But the Ship seems to prove that many (though not all) people are more likely to stick with lively, engaged charismatic churches that fail them intellectually than they are to stick with intellectual, liberal-leaning churches that don't provide them with the other elements that they want from a church. And this seems to be true for both clergy and laity.
Of course, it depends on what's available where you live. I'm sure London (and the South East) has everything, even lively, emotionally fulfilling, intellectually satisfying, demographically broad, ultra liberal churches. The demographics of the region can support a few all-embracing churches of this type, which appears not to be true in most other parts of the UK.
[ 27. September 2017, 17:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Does Jesus make an appearance?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Does Jesus make an appearance?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Does Jesus make an appearance?
We're talking theologians (academic ones) so you are either being very flippant, very ignorant or very profound.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes; but it is very possible to delight in the academic prowess and stimulus of theology without meeting Jesus, or even intending to do so.
Which does not mean that I am against theology, quite the opposite in fact, as I definitely want Christians to use their brains in thinking about their faith.
[ 28. September 2017, 17:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Liberal Christian Theology is essentially about how the teachings of Jesus Christ should determine our behaviour in today's society.
Erm... leaving aside the fact that Evangelicalism is very much on the platform of applying the teachings of Jesus - indeed Scripture in general - to life and society, I would want to ask 'which teachings?'
i would ask, as supplementary questions, 'Which teachings do you omit? Why? And how do you decide? Indeed, if some teachings of Jesus are not acceptable, then why would you accept any of them?'
In fact,if the liberal mind is wont only to accept the teachings it can personally accept, then I would suggest that it's rather dishonest to falsely attach the name of Jesus to them; instead why not simply talk about moral teachings from a humanistic perspective and be done with all this 'Christian-lite' affectation and pretence?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I never really understood people who have defined themselves out the door wanting the building to move so that they're still inside. Why not find another building, one that fits one's definitions better? It's as if I were a member of a tulip bulb collector's society, and decided I'd rather collect chrysanthemum bulbs, and insist that the tulip society change itself to be a tulip plus chrysanthemum club, or switch over to chrysanthemums and leave tulips altogether. It's an absurd request.
Anglican Brat
I like your OP, also your friend – may I suggest trying a local Humanist Group?!
[ 28. September 2017, 18:22: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Does Jesus make an appearance?
Given leo's church tradition I imagine that he does so at the consecration, every Sunday.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Jesus doesn't arrive until the priest summons him with bells?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not in the minds of those participating on the ritual, no. Anything wrong with that?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Yes.
Where does one begin?
The logical conclusion to this is that the Holy Spirit is entirely absent unless he tags along with Jesus, and that if there is no Eucharist celebrated, Jesus is also absent, and people are gathering for some kind of event that is devoid of any divine presence until the man at the front summons him to appear at his beck and call.
Totally ridiculous.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Quite right, Muddy, that is a succinct explanation of exactly what Christians who believe in the Real Presence believe, and not remotely a man of straw. Well done.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whereas your rituals are far more real.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Not sure what you mean by real.
But what I would say, with the greatest respect for the Sacrament, is that the presence of God is not dependent upon the ritual being performed; surely the ritual points to, confirms and makes personal to the worshipper the already-present Christ.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Is the idea of a cup of tea or a hug as real a comfort as an actual cup of tea or hug?
Sorry to be Martin60 like, but when it comes to the sacraments poor analogies are the best I do.
Jengie
[ 29. September 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which straw man would do such a thing?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The one you yourself set up!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If you're being literal ...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Nothing you wrote suggests otherwise.
Question, is Jesus present in worship outside the experience of the Eucharist?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's in the eye of the beholder mate. What we bring to the party.
[ 29. September 2017, 14:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Do you know, I agree with that entirely.
There's a Wesley hymn that says as much:
Jesus, where'er thy people meet,
There they behold the mercy seat;
Where'er they seek thee thou art found,
And every place is hallowed ground.
For thou, within no walls confined,
Inhabitest the humble mind;
Such ever bring thee where they come,
And going take thee to their home.
I preached a sermon once on the sacrament where I quoted 'Deep calls unto deep.'
In other words, the sacrament 'works' because it connects the presence of God already within the worshipper with the presence of God revealed in the sacrament.
[ 29. September 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yer cannee beat Charles Wesley. Or William Cowper who wrote that for that matter.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Whoops!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And if I'm preaching you might get Annie Dillard. Also Brian McClaren for the sake of our recovering evangelicals.
Does Jesus make an appearance?
Given leo's church tradition I imagine that he does so at the consecration, every Sunday.
Official catholic teaching is that Jesus is present in the Word - read and preached
and in the assembled community
as well as in the sacrament
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
Why would you even say that?
Nobody is implying it at all.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Martin60 quote:
Yer cannee beat Charles Wesley. Or William Cowper who wrote that for that matter.
I think Wesley's Arminianism beats Cowper's Calvinism:
The next line from Cowper's hymn after the quoted stanzas reads: "Dear Shepherd of thy chosen few." Contrast with Wesley:
Thy sovereign grace to all extends,
Immense and unconfined;
From age to age it never ends,
It reaches all mankind.
Throughout the world its breadth is known,
Wide as infinity,
So wide it never passed by one;
Or it had passed by me.
IMO, Game, set and match to Charlie!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sigh. Obviously the problem with liberalism is that it isn't as Christian as Evangelicalism.
Why would you even say that?
Nobody is implying it at all.
So it was a different Mudfrog in a parallel universe who posted this then:
quote:
Originally not posted by anyone, apparently
In fact,if the liberal mind is wont only to accept the teachings it can personally accept, then I would suggest that it's rather dishonest to falsely attach the name of Jesus to them; instead why not simply talk about moral teachings from a humanistic perspective and be done with all this 'Christian-lite' affectation and pretence?
[ 29. September 2017, 18:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Yeah, that comment is made in the context of the opening post.
The recent few posts have to do with the presence of Jesus in worship, either in the sacrament or before the consecration.
Apples and pears
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
quote:
... Does Jesus make an appearance?
Given leo's church tradition I imagine that he does so at the consecration, every Sunday.
Official catholic teaching is that Jesus is present in the Word - read and preached
and in the assembled community
as well as in the sacrament
"The sea is his and he made it. His hands prepared the dry land".
My understanding is that we are always, in all places and at all times, in the presence of God. He is just as near, whether we are aware of him or not. Indeed, it's better theological grammar to say we are near him, rather than he is near us.
Phrases like 'we had a great time of worship, and God showed up' really make me cringe. Apart from being, I think, really bad theology, they make it sound as though one can manipulate God's presence, call him up as though we were Shakespeare's version of Owen Glendower.
What makes the difference for us though, is how conscious we are of God. We are both physical and spiritual beings. So he happens to have provided ways that crystallise this for us, ways to build up that relationship. If he has said,
"Do this in remembrance of me ... "
"When you pray ..... "
"Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ... "
we can hardly expect him to reveal himself if we neglect the ways he has provided. But it seems to me that any problems are at our end, not God's
Well, that's what I think, anyway.
[ 29. September 2017, 19:41: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
Martin can speak for himself. I merely point out that at a service in which encounter with Jesus is the central feature this is hardly undermined because leo cites Annie Dillard and Brian McClaren in his sermon.
Sorry, I forgot, you are Sally Army - presumably if Jesus was summoned by tambourines this would be entirely in line with the teaching of the Gospels, as opposed to Jesus' clear commands to Baptise people in the Great Commission and to Do This In Remembrance Of Me at the Last Supper.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not sure what you mean by real.
But what I would say, with the greatest respect for the Sacrament, is that the presence of God is not dependent upon the ritual being performed; surely the ritual points to, confirms and makes personal to the worshipper the already-present Christ.
Angel: Take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy ground.
Moses: If holy means God is present there, isn't that rock over there holy? What about that creosote bush half a mile west of here? Is God more present by this torch than anywhere else on the plateau?
[ 29. September 2017, 23:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
Well, lets use an analogy for marriage. Do you love your partner all the time? Well, then why do you go out with her on your wedding anniversary? You shouldn't love her more one day than the other 364 days of the year.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, that comment is made in the context of the opening post.
The recent few posts have to do with the presence of Jesus in worship, either in the sacrament or before the consecration.
Apples and pears
So you do think that, just not in the context of the Eucharist? Fwiw, I think Mr Cheesy was referring back to your comment above, not the subsequent posts.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Holy Spirit's presence within is the presence of God. The sacrament is very valuable but is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. To suggest that the only time one encounters Jesus is in the sacrament is very poor doctrine indeed.
Well, lets use an analogy for marriage. Do you love your partner all the time? Well, then why do you go out with her on your wedding anniversary? You shouldn't love her more one day than the other 364 days of the year.
That makes my point for me.
I don't love my wife only on the day we go out for an anniversary. We go out for an anniversary because I love her all the time.
The sacrament is like a frequent anniversary, it's a focus of the constant presence of Jesus in worship and, indeed, in life.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I am inferring from some of the replies that some of you think I am minimising the sacrament; I am not. I would be saying that the sacrament is a means of grace where Jesus is encountered but that it is not the only place he is present.
It may be a focus, a 'concentrated' event where by sight, sound, touch, smell and taste we humans can 'touch' him, but we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Wesley spoke of a 6th sense that was beyond the human experience and was the divine presence, a gift of Gd.
I believe that all life and worship can be as sacramental as that.
And tambourines (in any church setting) are not a sacrament!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the straw man, if there be one, is actually what you yourself said when you replied that Jesus makes an appearance on Sundays 'at the consecration'; also, what Martin60 said in his reply to me, stating clearly that in the minds of the people in church Jesus does not in fact arrive until, as I facetiously asked, he is summoned with bells.
Martin can speak for himself. I merely point out that at a service in which encounter with Jesus is the central feature this is hardly undermined because leo cites Annie Dillard and Brian McClaren in his sermon.
Sorry, I forgot, you are Sally Army - presumably if Jesus was summoned by tambourines this would be entirely in line with the teaching of the Gospels, as opposed to Jesus' clear commands to Baptise people in the Great Commission and to Do This In Remembrance Of Me at the Last Supper.
Martin will. In that bit of theatre in which we take part we are guided in our thoughts by the narrative and flow of events. It's all part of what we invoke. Make up. It doesn't all happen at once. Our minds don't work like that. They need a story.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Do what, exactly, in remembrance of him...?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Straw man. Is the ground in front of the burning bush holier than the ground 1000 feet away? Why or why not? Answers on a postcard.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That was the OT. I'm not sure the NT gives us grounds to see a 'holy bush' as any holier than anywhere else. There are no super holy places in the NT. The holiness is Jesus Christ's alone....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That was the OT.
Yes, yes it was. But was it holier or not? Someone answer the question for me here.
quote:
I'm not sure the NT gives us grounds to see a 'holy bush' as any holier than anywhere else. There are no super holy places in the NT. The holiness is Jesus Christ's alone....
Was the OT was wrong about the nature of holiness, then? Local holiness (both of place and of thing) is all over the OT. Did that cease to be with the incarnation? Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
[ 01. October 2017, 05:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we are the poorer if we think that he can only be present at that point, in that moment.
Straw man. Is the ground in front of the burning bush holier than the ground 1000 feet away? Why or why not? Answers on a postcard.
God was no closer to Moses, but Moses was closer to God.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think holiness is somewhat different in the NT. In both OT and NT it takes people by surprise. They blunder into it and are brought up short, but in the OT it is more often away from the business of life, and impressive, whereas in the NT it is in the midst of life and easier to miss. Like Jesus.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The OT got it just right on holiness for the evolving times I'm sure. It was always the holiest of all possible worlds. In the minds of the writers. And so it is now. It's entirely down to us to invoke holiness.
In the Moses story, which I used to believe was gospel and miss those childish things so, if God said the ground around that miraculously unburnt burning bush was holy, that was more than good enough for me. As the Eucharist is now.
As we evolved, holiness has. Our understanding of it has. Like righteousness. In my case in just a few years. Although the righteousness of universal social justice is explicit in the prophets, it's taken me three thousand years to realise it has no other practical meaning. That holiness - the presence of God? the set asidedness for the purposes of God? - is the same thing.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
Surely God was always everywhere. But if God is everywhere then why is a bush especially holy?
quote:
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
It's not a question of rejecting the OT's understanding, but of accepting that that was a different time. We no longer engage in animal sacrifice because that was a different time. We no longer live according to Levitical rules for the same reason. The ordained priesthood is no longer passed exclusively from father to son, etc.
Moreover, I can't see an explicit NT equivalent for the burning bush. As for the Lord's supper, how we read the invitation to share in a meal whenever we meet is clearly open to interpretation. Most denominations (including mine) see some sort of theological significance it, but I think there'd be a degree of ambiguity in many of them about its precise quality as a holy act.
[ 01. October 2017, 10:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
They used to think that the Temple was holy and that little room in the middle was the Holiest.
We now know that the way is open and that Jesus is God-not-in-a-Temple-but-in-us.
The holy place, the holy of holies is us - we are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The true sacrament - or properly: 'mystery of faith' - is 'Christ in you, the hope of glory.' (Colossians 1 v 27)
Since Pentecost God is not with us (in burning bushes or in a temple made with hands) but is within us. There are no holy places except the human heart that is receptive to grace.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You liberal you Mudfrog!
And perfectly orthodox SvitlanaV2.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You liberal you Mudfrog!
And perfectly orthodox SvitlanaV2.
Why is that liberal? It's perfectly good evangelical Wesleyan Salvationist theology
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I am reminded of a snippet from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s “Aurora Leigh”:
quote:
Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.
I guess that given my screen name, my avatar and my signature, it doesn’t come as a surprise that this story resonates with me for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. It’s one of those stories that one can spend a great deal of time unpacking, and still come back and find more later on. It’s a mistake, I think, for look only for direct lines of correlation: x = A, or the like.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did the omnipresence of God begin when Mary had her chat with Gabriel?
Surely God was always everywhere. But if God is everywhere then why is a bush especially holy?
Because it is where Moses directly encounters God.
There is a strand in the rabbinic tradition that says the burning bush actually underscores the omnipresence of God. Jewish tradition is that the bush was a thornbush, and the idea is that by manifesting himself in such an ordinary and even unattractive plant, God emphasizes his presence in all things.
The ground around the bush is not holy (meaning set apart or separate from other ground) because the divine is present there. The divine is present everywhere. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? declares the Lord,” asks Jeremiah (23:24). But what is happening here is not presence but a theophany, a manifestation of the divine presence (in Jewish terms, the Shekhina) in such a way that humans can directly perceive and even engage with it. The ground is holy because what is happening there is holy.
quote:
quote:
I have no idea how you can reject the OT's understanding of holiness just because it's not mentioned in the NT. Could it have something to do with your church's traditions?
It's not a question of rejecting the OT's understanding, but of accepting that that was a different time. We no longer engage in animal sacrifice because that was a different time. We no longer live according to Levitical rules for the same reason. The ordained priesthood is no longer passed exclusively from father to son, etc.
Moreover, I can't see an explicit NT equivalent for the burning bush.
Yes, things are somewhat different in the NT, because of the Incarnation. God is manifest, God is with us, in a new and complete way. The Spirit dwells within us.
But there are parallels in the NT to the theophanies of the OT, to the divine breaking through in such a way as to be directly perceived. The baptism of Jesus and the Transfiguration are perhaps the most obvious. Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus and Pentecost, perhaps.
quote:
As for the Lord's supper, how we read the invitation to share in a meal whenever we meet is clearly open to interpretation. Most denominations (including mine) see some sort of theological significance it, but I think there'd be a degree of ambiguity in many of them about its precise quality as a holy act.
Frankly, I don’t think there’s too much ambiguity. Jesus said to “eat this bread,” which he said is his body, and to “drink this cup,” which he said is his blood, as his memorial. Paul added that whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Jesus’s death until he comes again.
Perhaps God’s instruction to Moses is helpful here. God tells Moses to remove his sandals. Again, rabbinic tradition sees this a couple of ways (at least). The most direct is as a sign of humility and of acknowledging God’s superiority. This is consistent with the meaning of shoes/sandals elsewhere in the OT. But some also see it more metaphorically, as an invitation to direct contact with the holy. Moses cannot touch the burning bush, but he can touch the holy ground around it. But in order to do that, he must remove his sandals, so that his feet are in direct contact with the ground. (Some these days might say so that he can be truly “grounded.”) This can be understood both spiritually—discarding the things that keep us from truly encountering the divine—but also physically, since Judaism didn’t see a strict separation between the two.
In a similar way, God provides water, bread and wine (and per some traditions, oil), so that we can physically connect with the divine, so that it becomes a tangible and embodied encounter and not just an intellectual or emotional encounter.
[ 02. October 2017, 13:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Mudfrog
Which of these synonyms of liberal doesn't apply to the salvation obtained in Christ alone?
abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich, excessive, immoderate, superabundant, overabundant, over the top, plenteous, generous, magnanimous, open-handed, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, kind-hearted, kind, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish, extravagant, overgenerous, generous to a fault, immoderate, wasteful, overabundant, profligate, prodigal, thriftless, improvident, intemperate, unrestrained, wild
?
[ 02. October 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Did Jesus actually say "eat this bread"?
"Take, eat", and "do this", maybe, the gospels don't agree. It matters to me because I can more easily locate the presence of Christ in the actions, including serving, and in the remembering and re-enacting than in the bread and wine themselves. I have an over-twitchy hocus pocus detector.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Did Jesus actually say "eat this bread"?
"Take, eat", and "do this", maybe, the gospels don't agree. It matters to me because I can more easily locate the presence of Christ in the actions, including serving, and in the remembering and re-enacting than in the bread and wine themselves. I have an over-twitchy hocus pocus detector.
Hmm. Perhaps not. I didn't go back and check. I think he perhaps just says "take and eat/drink." I may have been conflating what Jesus is recorded as saying with Paul's "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup . . . ."
(And FWIW, I understand the tendency to twitchiness. But I perhaps have a comparable twitchiness to what sometimes seems like a reactive downplaying of the significance of the bread and cup.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I don’t think there’s too much ambiguity. Jesus said to “eat this bread,” which he said is his body, and to “drink this cup,” which he said is his blood, as his memorial. Paul added that whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Jesus’s death until he comes again.
Perhaps God’s instruction to Moses is helpful here. God tells Moses to remove his sandals. Again, rabbinic tradition sees this a couple of ways (at least). The most direct is as a sign of humility and of acknowledging God’s superiority. This is consistent with the meaning of shoes/sandals elsewhere in the OT. But some also see it more metaphorically, as an invitation to direct contact with the holy. Moses cannot touch the burning bush, but he can touch the holy ground around it. But in order to do that, he must remove his sandals, so that his feet are in direct contact with the ground. (Some these days might say so that he can be truly “grounded.”) This can be understood both spiritually—discarding the things that keep us from truly encountering the divine—but also physically, since Judaism didn’t see a strict separation between the two.
In a similar way, God provides water, bread and wine (and per some traditions, oil), so that we can physically connect with the divine, so that it becomes a tangible and embodied encounter and not just an intellectual or emotional encounter.
Thank you for this.
As you've suggested here, there are 'traditional' ways of seeing the NT mirroring the OT. But IMO the ambiguity remains, not least because some denominations hardly focus on what you've mentioned here. Certainly, the idea that we 'physically' connect with the divine through communion doesn't, ISTM, sit neatly with a memorialist understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
It is not different versions, it is the same version, see 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
My own take is that we are reluctant to see the enormity of it. Whatever is going on I think it points to Christ binding himself to the disciples (and therefore by proxy us) not as good people in the future but as they are then in that room, doubters, deniers and at least in one version including Judas who would betray him.
Jengie
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A damn good take.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
With the caveat, I would suggest, that the English understanding of "remember" doesn't have quite the depth of meaning that the Greek anamnesis does, or the Hebrew concept of "memorial," which likely provided the context for what the disciples would have understood Jesus to mean by "in rememberance of me."
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yeah, for that reason I tend to take the Iona Community usage which is 're-member' rather than 'remember'.
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
We both eat and drink and remember as we do.
With the caveat, I would suggest, that the English understanding of "remember" doesn't have quite the depth of meaning that the Greek anamnesis does, or the Hebrew concept of "memorial," which likely provided the context for what the disciples would have understood Jesus to mean by "in rememberance of me."
I think that rather than reading back the early church, 2nd Century evolution of the Eucharist and what it came to mean for the Gentile church in Rome and Asia Minor, we should actually be looking at what the Passover meal meant to the first century Jew of AD33 (or whatever year it was to them).
It seems logical to me that as Jesus reclined at the tables with all the elements of the Passover meal arrayed before them
Forget Da Vinci!, when he said 'Do this in remembrance of me', the 'This' he was referring to was the Passover meal in its entirety with all its constituent elements - liturgical questions and prayers; the bread, wine, lamb, herbs, etc, etc....
(We all know that in the Gentile world that was totally irrelevant and the Eucharist became a symbolic meal - we don't need to reiterate that)
but my point is this: when Jesus gestured to the food on the table and used each element to illustrate the Exodus story; when in the context of the Passover commemoration of the Exodus he said 'when you do this',
1) What was the 'this'? (I suggest it was the Passover meal.)
2) What was being remembered (It was the Exodus, now it was himself
3) What did it mean to 'remember' in that exodus context? Was he saying they should remember him as they had up to that point remembered Moses and the Exodus? I think I would suggest so.
That being the case I would ask, how, in what manner, do the Jewish brothers and sisters 'remember' the Exodus?
Is it a memorial celebration or is there, as has been suggested, more going on? I would like to know what happens in the heart and mind of a Jewish person as he, even today, remembers the Exodus every Friday night or at Passover.
I think I would be safe to say that if we discern how the Jews 'remember' Moses we will be close to getting inside the intention of Jesus and the thoughts of the Apostles a to how they remembered Jesus subsequently when they celebrated te Lord's Supper.
I find it difficult - along with all Evangelicals - to go beyond the memorialist stage. It seems t me to be a reading back into the words of Jesus something he never intended, and something alien to the Apostles' Jewish mindset.
If we insist on a literal reading of amamnesis, can Shipmates help me to understand how the first century Jew employs that to remember the Exodus? What would amamnesis be like for them
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
anamnesis.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
but my point is this: when Jesus gestured to the food on the table and used each element to illustrate the Exodus story; when in the context of the Passover commemoration of the Exodus he said 'when you do this',
1) What was the 'this'? (I suggest it was the Passover meal.)
2) What was being remembered (It was the Exodus, now it was himself
3) What did it mean to 'remember' in that exodus context? Was he saying they should remember him as they had up to that point remembered Moses and the Exodus? I think I would suggest so.
I'm not clear what you are saying here.
It seems to me that you're mixing up various passages.
quote:
From Luke
22:15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 22:16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 22:17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 22:19 Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 22:20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
The "this" in 22:19 is ambiguous: what is it that is to be done? Drinking the cup, having the meal, blessing the food, dividing it amongst many?
quote:
from Mark
14:22 While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.” 14:23 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 14:24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 14:25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” 14:26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Mark doesn't seem to be writing from the context of a meal. And the "this" doesn't seem to appear in the same way.
quote:
From 1 Corinthians 11
11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
I'd suggest that it is hard to position the "this" in that paragraph as being about having the meal, otherwise verse 11:25 becomes "do this [the passover meal] every time you eat/drink it in remembrance of me"
Taken together I can't see that the "this" can be talking about the passover meal, because that makes little grammatical sense.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Also I think the strictest Evangelical memorial sense of the Eucharist makes little sense anyway.
Jesus' followers had experienced the incarnation, had been around for three years and had experienced the shame of the crucifixion followed by the resurrection and Pentecost.
Why would they need to have a memorial meal?
It seems to me that the Evangelical sensibility is so numb and so committed to the idea that God is everywhere that they're now basically announcing that he's nowhere. That eating the Eucharist is no different to eating a baked beans from a can.
As to thinking that they've got the "authentic" understanding of the Eucharist ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems logical to me that as Jesus reclined at the tables with all the elements of the Passover meal arrayed before them
Forget Da Vinci!, when he said 'Do this in remembrance of me', the 'This' he was referring to was the Passover meal in its entirety with all its constituent elements - liturgical questions and prayers; the bread, wine, lamb, herbs, etc, etc....
There are a couple of problems with that approach. First, when you talk about the Seder with its "liturgical questions" etc., you're talking about a form of the Seder that hadn't yet developed in the First Century AD.
Second, the Scriptural text doesn't support it. Leaving aside the synoptic-Johannine issue of whether it actually was the Passover meal, the text is very clear that Jesus took bread and wine, blessed, broke and gave them saying "take and eat/drink." Nothing is said at all about other food on the table. Paul is also clear—"as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again. Paul couldn't be clearer in linking the remembrance to eating and drinking the bread and wine.
quote:
1) What was the 'this'? (I suggest it was the Passover meal.)
Which, again, is at odds with the text.
quote:
Is it a memorial celebration or is there, as has been suggested, more going on? I would like to know what happens in the heart and mind of a Jewish person as he, even today, remembers the Exodus every Friday night or at Passover.
The Jewish idea of memorial was and is that by making the memorial, one participates in the event remembered, making it a present reality for those participating. So, for example, those participating in the Passover meal are not just recalling the Exodus as an event in the past—they are, in a sense, participating in it in the present, with implications for a future of freedom. Another example is the Avowal said with the offering of First Fruits, which is a way of participating in the redemption of Israel.
That's the understanding of "remembrance" or "memorial" the disciples would have had. They would have understood Jesus to be talking of remembering his death in such a way that they were participants with him in it. That's part of what Paul is getting at when he says we "proclaim" Jesus's death when we follow his command to "remember" him in the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup.
quote:
I find it difficult - along with all Evangelicals - to go beyond the memorialist stage. It seems t me to be a reading back into the words of Jesus something he never intended, and something alien to the Apostles' Jewish mindset.
And I'm afraid that to me the Evangelical memorialist view comes across as trying to rationalize away what Jesus actually said. It seems more grounded in a Western post-enlightenment framework than a scriptural one.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yeah, for that reason I tend to take the Iona Community usage which is 're-member' rather than 'remember'.
Yes, I like that too.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Didn't John Wayne Bobbitt have that done?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
mr cheesy
But is God everywhere or not?
With regard to the topic of the thread, the idea that God is somehow in the bread and wine more than anywhere else doesn't strike me as a particularly liberal belief to hold. What about the majority of self-professed Christians who don't go to church? Doesn't that exclude them?
And I don't think memorialism is an especially evangelical position to take. I should think that many MOTR Christians with liberal inclinations also lean in that direction, including many (but not all) Methodists. Nevertheless, there's great respect for communion, and its place in the life and heritage of the church is valued.
Communion certainly has a spiritual quality. It's also one of those rituals that bind churchgoers together, which is why I think some churches are so eager for visitors to participate; the open table is a kind of recruitment tool. But is it presented as an extra special way of meeting God? Not really, IME.
But there's a range of theological perspectives. It all adds to the gaiety of nations, so to speak. God will be merciful.
[ 03. October 2017, 13:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mr cheesy
But is God everywhere or not?
Seems to me that's the wrong question.
quote:
With regard to the topic of the thread, the idea that God is somehow in the bread and wine more than anywhere else doesn't strike me as a particularly liberal belief to hold. What about the majority of self-professed Christians who don't go to church? Doesn't that exclude them?
Take it up with Jesus.
quote:
And I don't think memorialism is an especially evangelical position to take. I should think that many MOTR Christians with liberal inclinations also lean in that direction, including many (but not all) Methodists. Nevertheless, there's great respect for communion, and its place in the life and heritage of the church is valued.
Fair comment - although the distinction I was making was between those who aren't extreme Evangelicals and those who are. Memorialists who aren't evangelicals are very likely to be open to other understandings of the Eucharist and are likely to be aware of the shortcomings of their own understanding. The most extreme Evangelicals are militantly memorialist and seem to think that they've got the whole Eucharist thing sewn up, end of story.
quote:
Communion certainly has a spiritual quality. It's also one of those rituals that bind churchgoers together, which is why I think some churches are so eager for visitors to participate; the open table is a kind of recruitment tool. But is it presented as an extra special way of meeting God? Not really, IME.
I don't see the Eucharist as any kind of recruitment tool. So I can't really comment on this.
quote:
But there's a range of theological perspectives. It all adds to the gaiety of nations, so to speak. God will be merciful.
Right. There are many theological perspectives on the Eucharist, but most of them are wrong.
Not really - I'm mostly reacting against the idea that memorialism is the only possible correct explanation and that other ideas are obviously wrong. I don't think it is obvious and it seems to me that memorialism has as many problems - possibly more - as the other explanations.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wrong?
Most?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, extreme evangelicals think they're right about all sorts of things. That's what makes them extreme!
I'm just a MOTR pew dweller, so my own perspective is probably wrong too. But I've listened to far too many sermons in my life, and never heard any of them try to convince me that communion was of monumental importance in bringing me into God's presence. And it's not an idea that presents itself to me naturally.
Nevertheless, it's not a problem for me that different denominations or traditions have different emphases. It's something that I value.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Mr cheesy, I don't think you can possibly use one passage as an argument against another. Why are you doing it? The different Gospel references and the Pauline reference are all describing the very same event.
There is no way that if this was a Passover meal -let;s assume that it is because John and Paul very definitely say it was - (Christ our Passover, included as a reference to that) - that there would have only been a patten and a chalice on that table as if Jesus were presiding, priest-like over an AD33-style Roman Mass!
Neither am I saying that it was a seder meal or Passover meal as we see today in modern Judaism; I am well aware that there is no surviving order of service for a 1st Century Passover meal. But it would be an argument from silence to suggest that what Jesus did - along with thousands of other households that night - bore no relation whatever to the original passover and the subsequent Passover commemorations of the Jews in the last 2000 years.
What I will say is that Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist on that night.
The 'This' is heavily implied to be the Passover meal that Jesus gave new meaning to - otherwise, why bother?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mr cheesy, I don't think you can possibly use one passage as an argument against another. Why are you doing it? The different Gospel references and the Pauline reference are all describing the very same event.
I was mostly making a point about grammar. Taken together, the "this" you are building a case around cannot be the passover meal.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Cheesy, you yourself quoted Luke's account describing Jesus as saying 'eat this Passover...'
What else makes you believe that
1) it was not the Passover and
2) it was not even a meal?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The question is about this phrase:
"Do this in remembrance of me" and a debate about what "this" is.
Grammatically, the Corinthians verse doesn't work if the "this" is referring to the passover meal.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yeah, for that reason I tend to take the Iona Community usage which is 're-member' rather than 'remember'.
Yes, I use that setting quite often, and like it. But sometimes I feel it's a bit too clever and precious for its own good.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question is about this phrase:
"Do this in remembrance of me" and a debate about what "this" is.
Grammatically, the Corinthians verse doesn't work if the "this" is referring to the passover meal.
And yet Paul specifically calls Jesus Christ our Passover (lamb). A bit pointless if Jesus didn't link his death to the Passover celebration where they ate a lamb.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sigh. Never mind then.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I'm sorry if I have an alternative reading and won't just accept your view.
It all seems so simple to me.
Jesus celebrated a Passover meal and asked the disciples to remember him every time they did it because he was the new means of redemption and freedom, the new Passover lamb.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way that if this was a Passover meal -let;s assume that it is because John and Paul very definitely say it was - (Christ our Passover, included as a reference to that) ....
To the contrary, John says very definitely that it was not the Passover meal. He says quite clearly that what we call the Last Supper was before the Festival of the Passover, and that the crucifixion occurred on "the Day of Preparation." This is important to John and his understanding of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb, because it means that the crucifixion happened at the same time that the lambs for the Passover meal were being slaughtered, identifying Jesus with those lambs. In John's description, the Passover meal would have been on Friday night, after Jesus had died.
quote:
The 'This' is heavily implied to be the Passover meal that Jesus gave new meaning to - otherwise, why bother?
I simply do not see that as implied at all, much less heavily implied. How do you deal with Paul saying "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup"? How do you deal with the fact that all accounts say that Jesus took the bread and said "this is my body," and to the cup and said "this is my blood," but no account mentions any other aspect of the meal itself?
There's no questions that in the early church, the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of a full meal (and celebrated weekly, not yearly like the Passover.). But I see nothing in any account suggesting "this" means anything other than eating the broken bread and drinking from the cup.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, extreme evangelicals think they're right about all sorts of things. That's what makes them extreme!
Whereas the Orthodox, the Catholics and other sacramentalists are so laid back they have no dogmas at all!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
. . . and that the crucifixion occurred on "the Day of Preparation."
Brain fart on my part. Sorry.
"Day of Preparation," of course, refers to the day before the Sabbath. But John goes further to note that the Sabbath that year was "a day of great solemnity." That, I'd suggest, coupled with John's statement that the supper occurred the day before the Passover, is a heavy implication that the Passover fell on the Sabbath that year, not on Friday.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Communion certainly has a spiritual quality. It's also one of those rituals that bind churchgoers together, which is why I think some churches are so eager for visitors to participate; the open table is a kind of recruitment tool. But is it presented as an extra special way of meeting God? Not really, IME.
I don't see the Eucharist as any kind of recruitment tool. So I can't really comment on this.
John Weslky saw it as 'a converting ordinance' and Sarah Miles was converted by receiving and wrote about it in 'Eat This Bread.'
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Cheesy, you yourself quoted Luke's account describing Jesus as saying 'eat this Passover...'
No, he didn't. He inserted the words 'this Passover' to show that it doesn't make sense as an interpretation of the instruction.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mr cheesy, I don't think you can possibly use one passage as an argument against another. Why are you doing it? The different Gospel references and the Pauline reference are all describing the very same event.
There is no way that if this was a Passover meal -let;s assume that it is because John and Paul very definitely say it was - (Christ our Passover, included as a reference to that) - that there would have only been a patten and a chalice on that table as if Jesus were presiding, priest-like over an AD33-style Roman Mass!
Neither am I saying that it was a seder meal or Passover meal as we see today in modern Judaism; I am well aware that there is no surviving order of service for a 1st Century Passover meal. But it would be an argument from silence to suggest that what Jesus did - along with thousands of other households that night - bore no relation whatever to the original passover and the subsequent Passover commemorations of the Jews in the last 2000 years.
What I will say is that Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist on that night.
The 'This' is heavily implied to be the Passover meal that Jesus gave new meaning to - otherwise, why bother?
Because thousands of other households that night didn't do a thing. None of them did. It wasn't the Jews' Passover. 'This' was taking bread, 'My body', and wine, 'My blood'.
[ 03. October 2017, 18:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
There is a thread in Limbo discussing the meaning of anamnesis
Moo
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Isn't the feature of this discussion that is relevant to the thread the liberal pleasure in living with questions?
Biblical fundamentalists can insist on their readings of scripture, and strict sacramentalists on their beliefs about what God does in partnership with a priest, but liberals are content to not know exactly which day the Last Supper was, pleased that the gospels and Paul offer different accounts, and happy to entertain the next new interpretation.
Liberals like metaphor, and prefer things that remain open and undecided. They may be from a high church base or be of evangelical origins, but what makes them liberal is not their particular take on the Eucharist but their willingness to hold it as a provisional opinion. Someone who disagrees is not a threat, but offers an interesting point of view that the liberal might learn from.
What matters is not being right - how could we do that anyway? - but having our eyes opened. The joy is in the journey, letting go of old ideas and learning to understand afresh. It's not the understanding itself, but the coming to understand anew.
Parables are where liberals are most at home. They have no propositional truth content, but they are designed to get behind knowledge and operate at the level of what we want; feelings and self-identity.
So a discussion about the Eucharist that focuses on 'this' and the date, misses the point for liberals. Who cares what happened? What does it do to me? That's the issue! Is there life in this new idea? Or how about that one over there?
And in truth, this is how it is for everyone, it's just that a lot of people don't recognise it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... And in truth, this is how it is for everyone, it's just that a lot of people don't recognise it.
Is it? You make it all sound as though the difference between theological liberals and the rest of us ceases to be much to do with theology or spirituality and just comes down to which Myers-Briggs letters a person is.
Or perhaps that is all that it is.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mr cheesy, I don't think you can possibly use one passage as an argument against another. Why are you doing it? The different Gospel references and the Pauline reference are all describing the very same event.
There is no way that if this was a Passover meal -let;s assume that it is because John and Paul very definitely say it was - (Christ our Passover, included as a reference to that) - that there would have only been a patten and a chalice on that table as if Jesus were presiding, priest-like over an AD33-style Roman Mass!
Neither am I saying that it was a seder meal or Passover meal as we see today in modern Judaism; I am well aware that there is no surviving order of service for a 1st Century Passover meal. But it would be an argument from silence to suggest that what Jesus did - along with thousands of other households that night - bore no relation whatever to the original passover and the subsequent Passover commemorations of the Jews in the last 2000 years.
What I will say is that Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist on that night.
The 'This' is heavily implied to be the Passover meal that Jesus gave new meaning to - otherwise, why bother?
Because thousands of other households that night didn't do a thing. None of them did. It wasn't the Jews' Passover. 'This' was taking bread, 'My body', and wine, 'My blood'.
It was not a Mass. There was no altar, Jesus was not a priest. This was a Jewish occasion.
Thee was bread and wine as part of the occasion, it was not the only thing on the table.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Isn't the feature of this discussion that is relevant to the thread the liberal pleasure in living with questions? ...
What matters is not being right - how could we do that anyway? - but having our eyes opened. The joy is in the journey, letting go of old ideas and learning to understand afresh. It's not the understanding itself, but the coming to understand anew.
That seems to me to express the liberal position beautifully. My problem is that so many so-called liberals seem to have become locked into particular "liberal" interpretations and are not open to the kind of provisionality which you so rightly welcome. In fact they are as "closed" as any fundamentalist (and, dare I say, even more snooty about it?)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It was not a Mass. There was no altar, Jesus was not a priest. This was a Jewish occasion.
Thee was bread and wine as part of the occasion, it was not the only thing on the table.
Mudfrog, I'm going to try one last time - as I've been trying to say, this isn't about a difference of interpretation or timing, it is about linguistics and grammar.
quote:
From 1 Corinthians 11
11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Let me try to spell it out in steps:
1. You seem to be saying that the thing which the Lord here tells us to do is the passover meal
2. So you seem to be saying that the instruction in 11:24 and 11:25 is to have a meal, in remembrance of him
3. But that doesn't make any grammatical sense because how can you "have a passover meal" together with "every time you drink it"?
4. It might be arguable about how one eats and drinks, but it seems to me to be clear that the thing we're instructed to do is beyond simply eating and drinking. Because the construction of the instruction doesn't allow the idea that we're supposed to be remembering via a passover meal.
We're supposed to be remembering whilst eating and drinking. The thing we're supposed to do - the "this" - is something more than eating and drinking.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That seems to me to express the liberal position beautifully. My problem is that so many so-called liberals seem to have become locked into particular "liberal" interpretations and are not open to the kind of provisionality which you so rightly welcome. In fact they are as "closed" as any fundamentalist (and, dare I say, even more snooty about it?)
I think it misses something subtle - it isn't just that liberals don't think that it is just about things being provisional but that there is a necessary acceptance of doubt, uncertainty and not-knowing. The deep sense that the explanations we have don't fully explain things, that on some deeper level it is going to turn out that a lot of what we think we know is wrong.
I don't think it is a contradiction when a liberal rejects a strident view - by being liberal that doesn't have to mean that all views are equal and that strident conservative views are as likely to be true as any other.
In truth, I think most liberals find it easier to get a handle on the things we don't agree with (or believe) than the things we do.
But a closed, fundamental, strident view that has lost that sense of uncertainty and not-knowing and that what we believe could be partly or entirely wrong is not a liberal view.
That's the dichotomy. Liberals might be able to define what they don't believe but struggle to define what they do, and will hold many of those things quite lightly.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Biblical fundamentalists can insist on their readings of scripture, and strict sacramentalists on their beliefs about what God does in partnership with a priest, but liberals are content to not know exactly which day the Last Supper was, pleased that the gospels and Paul offer different accounts, and happy to entertain the next new interpretation.
Some liberals but I know of many liberals who are as doctrinaire over their liberal interpretation as any conservative. Liberal can be as creedal (you must not believe in the virgin birth, God does not intervene in the world, you must not take the Old Testament seriously etc) as either fundamentalism or high sacramentalism. My experience with high sacramentalists is that they are as happy with metaphor as anyone else they just use it in different places. It is so long since I have mixed with fundamentalists, if I ever did, I cannot speak for them. This is why I maintain there are two types of liberal.
Jengie
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Liberals like metaphor, and prefer things that remain open and undecided. They may be from a high church base or be of evangelical origins, but what makes them liberal is not their particular take on the Eucharist but their willingness to hold it as a provisional opinion. Someone who disagrees is not a threat, but offers an interesting point of view that the liberal might learn from.
Parables are where liberals are most at home. They have no propositional truth content, but they are designed to get behind knowledge and operate at the level of what we want; feelings and self-identity.
This is all of course not intended to have any propositional truth content. It is not meant to be propositionally true that liberals like metaphors or that anyone who disagrees is not seen as a threat or that parables are where liberals are most at home. The propositional truth is that most liberals like a bland beige intellectual-lite prose in which all the metaphors are safely dead ('where liberals are most at home', 'having our eyes opened', 'the joy is in the journey'). But as with Boris Johnson, propositional truth isn't the issue; it's about how it makes the speaker and allied hearers feel about themselves. It may not be propositionally true that liberals like metaphor, but they like to feel that they are the sort of people who do like metaphor. They may not be at home with parables, but they like to invoke the word 'parables' at the head of a paragraph like a statue of a saint in procession.
And it's not propositionally true that it's about self-identity. The most important piece of hatless' post is:
quote:
Biblical fundamentalists can insist on their readings of scripture, and strict sacramentalists on their beliefs about what God does in partnership with a priest
The propositional truth here is that the liberal defines himself (usually) over and against the fundamentalist and sacramentalist (strawman or not; their truth is irrelevant).
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
If it is strongly linked to personality type, then for some of us it will be tiring to maintain a liberal position. Faced with disagreement from without or unsettling thoughts within, we may look for something certain and solid to respond with. It's inconsistent, but understandable.
Don't we see it in politics? You might be a leftie in your opinions about punishment, but when police start cracking your friends' heads with batons you may well wish for overwhelming force on your side, or at least a handy brick.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Dafyd said
quote:
The propositional truth is that most liberals like a bland beige intellectual-lite prose in which all the metaphors are safely dead ('where liberals are most at home', 'having our eyes opened', 'the joy is in the journey'). But as with Boris Johnson, propositional truth isn't the issue; it's about how it makes the speaker and allied hearers feel about themselves.
I can see that you really hate what I said; not for the first time. I'm not quite sure why, though. It seems as if you are defending a bridge against some ancient evil that threatens to turn the world to jelly, and I am the carrier of this evil - but what is it?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I can see that you really hate what I said; not for the first time.
May I take it that this is not meant to have any propositional truth content? It's about your feelings? It's not literally true that you can see that I really hate what you said: rather you are expressing a wish that it were the case?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I know of many liberals who are as doctrinaire over their liberal interpretation as any conservative. Liberal can be as creedal (you must not believe in the virgin birth, God does not intervene in the world, you must not take the Old Testament seriously etc) as either fundamentalism or high sacramentalism.
That's really the point I was trying to make. And, if I have found conservatism in Baptist circles, I have also found the liberalism you describe in the Methodist and URC, and especially in my admittedly limited experience of "Sea of Faith".
[ 04. October 2017, 09:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
May I take it that this is not meant to have any propositional truth content? It's about your feelings? It's not literally true that you can see that I really hate what you said: rather you are expressing a wish that it were the case?
I see what you did there.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
At the risk of (rightly) being accused of junior hosting, isn't this becoming a bit too personal for Purgatory?
[ 04. October 2017, 10:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I can see that you really hate what I said; not for the first time.
May I take it that this is not meant to have any propositional truth content? It's about your feelings? It's not literally true that you can see that I really hate what you said: rather you are expressing a wish that it were the case?
I said that parables have no propositional truth content. The Good Samaritan does not tell us about travellers on the road to Jericho, it is intended to play with our prejudices. It doesn't even answer the lawyer's question. It is a story to be told and heard.
What do you think is at stake here?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
May I take it that this is not meant to have any propositional truth content? It's about your feelings? It's not literally true that you can see that I really hate what you said: rather you are expressing a wish that it were the case?
I said that parables have no propositional truth content. The Good Samaritan does not tell us about travellers on the road to Jericho, it is intended to play with our prejudices. It doesn't even answer the lawyer's question. It is a story to be told and heard.
What do you think is at stake here?
So you're saying that there's one attitude to parables which takes them as serious play, intended to disrupt our prejudices, to overturn our smug self-congratulations and more smug dismissals of others; and another attitude that impatient with play and irony demands to have it said straight out literalistically, "What do you think is at stake here?"
And I take it you assert that the "What do you think is at stake here?" attitude is the really evasive one, the one that wants to avoid the truth (propositional or otherwise), because actually everything at stake has already been stated, put on the table, out in the open?
[ 04. October 2017, 10:27: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
"What do you think is at stake here?" was a direct question to you, Dafyd. Why do these things we are talking about matter?
Regarding parables, I mentioned them as a good example of how liberals like to operate. Others will tend to look elsewhere rather than do parables badly, though you do come across some literalistic interpretations of them.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Hatless
What would you classify someone who holds quite determinedly that:
- God does not intervene in the natural order
- That the Biblical miracles did not happen, there are natural explanations
- The Bible must be seen as conveying truth through analogically and does not relate to history at all
- That we should ignore all parts of scripture that portray God as judging particularly those in the Old Testament
- That the sacraments are human created symbolic actions.
These are equally truth propositions and can be held dogmatically as any conservative or sacramentalist line.
Jengie
p.s. I know of people who maintain 2 dogmatically but not 1. So basically accept in certain circumstances that God does miracles today but do not consider the possibility that the Biblical miracles are genuine.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It was not a Mass. There was no altar, Jesus was not a priest. This was a Jewish occasion.
Thee was bread and wine as part of the occasion, it was not the only thing on the table.
No one has said that the bread and wine were the only things on the table, or that Jesus's taking of the bread and wine didn't happen in the context of a meal, or that the Last Supper looked like a Catholic Mass.
What people have been saying is that the bread and wine are the only aspects of the meal to which the texts record Jesus giving significance, and that the texts do not support the idea that by "this" Jesus meant the Passover meal or the idea that the disciples understood him to mean the Passover meal.
Of course, there is a Passover connection and context. But Jesus is clearly taking that Passover context and turning it into something new and different, not just adding a new layer to the traditional Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mr cheesy, I don't think you can possibly use one passage as an argument against another. Why are you doing it? The different Gospel references and the Pauline reference are all describing the very same event.
There is no way that if this was a Passover meal -let;s assume that it is because John and Paul very definitely say it was - (Christ our Passover, included as a reference to that) - that there would have only been a patten and a chalice on that table as if Jesus were presiding, priest-like over an AD33-style Roman Mass!
Neither am I saying that it was a seder meal or Passover meal as we see today in modern Judaism; I am well aware that there is no surviving order of service for a 1st Century Passover meal. But it would be an argument from silence to suggest that what Jesus did - along with thousands of other households that night - bore no relation whatever to the original passover and the subsequent Passover commemorations of the Jews in the last 2000 years.
What I will say is that Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist on that night.
The 'This' is heavily implied to be the Passover meal that Jesus gave new meaning to - otherwise, why bother?
Because thousands of other households that night didn't do a thing. None of them did. It wasn't the Jews' Passover. 'This' was taking bread, 'My body', and wine, 'My blood'.
It was not a Mass. There was no altar, Jesus was not a priest. This was a Jewish occasion.
Thee was bread and wine as part of the occasion, it was not the only thing on the table.
Mass is when we do it in remembrance of Him with the tokens. Mass, the Eucharist, Divine Liturgy, is our formal, collective remembrance with whatever substantial narrative one has to have. In my case, none at all. Not that I would ever take the tokens in a restrictive environment despite happily sitting, standing, singing, praying through the service in Catholic churches. I haven't gone forward to bow my head, but would do next time.
This was a Jewish occasion because a couple of handsful of Jews were doing it.
No one else.
It wasn't the Nisan 15th Jews Passover Seder or even Friday night Oneg Shabbat, although it would became both for the first wave of predominantly Jewish Christians. It was a unique event on the evening start of Nisan 14th. I.e. the start of that day, in the evening after the sundown of the 13th.
Jesus was slaughtered whilst the hundreds of thousands of lambs were being slaughtered, during the quartodeciman day of Nisan 14th, in preparation for the Jews' Passover Seder, after sunset at the evening start of Nisan 15th, the First of Unleavened Bread.
That's how Jesus fulfilled the Passover, became korban Pesach, the Pascal Lamb, prefigured in the first Eucharist the evening before.
During the silence of the lambs.
It's quite simple.
Whatever else was on the table is irrelevant.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Holding any opinions determinedly, any opinions in a contested area, would seem to be an illiberal attitude. The position you set out could be one influenced by biblical criticism, informed by scientific thought, and prepared to question biblical morality from another viewpoint. Those would all be marks of a liberal process of questioning. But if the position is subsequently held rigidly and defensively, then that is not so liberal.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Are the dimensions "liberal" and "tolerance" orthogonal or correlated? To say more simply, might a liberal be rigid in their liberality, or do we conflate tolerance and liberality frequently, and might this be wrong? I suspect that the relationship is complex, such that liberality is tolerant in some things but intolerant of others. Which means our simple understanding of correlation isn't enough between these two things.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
"What do you think is at stake here?" was a direct question to you, Dafyd. Why do these things we are talking about matter?
Regarding parables, I mentioned them as a good example of how liberals like to operate.
Of course it was a direct question to me. But you'd mentioned how liberals like to keep things open and how Jesus in telling the parable of the Good Samaritan didn't answer the question, so I thought that you wouldn't like a direct answer.
Maybe you would like a direct answer, and therefore parables (as you characterise them) are not in fact how you as a liberal like to operate after all?
That said, as I hinted, I'm not sure that a direct or straight question is always the same thing as a sincere question. Because I think I've repeatedly said why I think the things we're talking about matter. You just don't seem to want to accept that I really mean the stuff about 'our smug self-congratulations and more smug dismissals of others'. Or the bit about Boris Johnson for that matter.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0